He also writes regularly for Forbes, contributes opinion articles to US newspapers and has written several books critical of climate change science and the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Michaels' columns often suggest climate scientists who accept the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by the availability of taxpayer funds. [4]

Mother Jones magazine reported in 2010 that “Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret.” [5]

In a leaked 2006 memo of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), Michaels is listed as a recipient of at least $100,000 from IREA to combat global warming “alarmists.” The IREA memo outlines a coordinated strategy by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups. “We have met with Koch, CEI and Dr. Michaels, and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities,” NERA's General Manager Stan Lewandowski wrote. [97]

New Hope Environmental Services

Patrick Michaels founded the consulting firm New Hope Environmental Services. Michaels described (PDF) the firm's purpose as to “publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary.” [6]

SourceWatch describes New Hope Environmental Services as “in effect … a PR firm.” New Hope is secretive about its funding sources, and fought a Greenpeace motion seeking disclosure. It is known to have received funds from electrical utilities in the past. [7]

Fossil Fuel Funding

Patrick Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [12]

Stance on Climate Change

December 8, 2016

“Probably the best solution is to do nothing, because doing nothing is doing something.” [90]

2016

“Surface temperatures are indeed increasing slightly: They’ve been going up, in fits and starts, for more than 150 years, or since a miserably cold and pestilential period known as the Little Ice Age. Before carbon dioxide from economic activity could have warmed us up, temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit between 1910 and World War II. They then cooled down a bit, only to warm again from the mid-1970s to the late ’90s, about the same amount as earlier in the century.” [13]

2007

“It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed… .

“… the best policy is to live with some modest climate change now and encourage economic development, which will generate the capital necessary for investment in the more efficient technologies of the future.” [14]

Key Quotes

December 8, 2016

“You properly account for the fact that the earth is getting greener, the more co2 we put in—you can see it on satellite—it is God's getting greener Earth. If you account for all of those, what happens is the social cost of carbon becomes the social benefit of carbon.” [90]

December, 2016

“[Trump's] nomination of Scott Pruitt is further evidence that the president-elect is serious, and circumstantial evidence that the influence of Al Gore’s recent visit was of little consequence.” [83]

“The conference also has a moral duty to examine the corruption of science that can be caused by massive amounts of money. The United States has disbursed tens of billions of dollars to climate scientists who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects. Are these scientists being tempted by money? And are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by industry somehow less virtuous?” [15]

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) own computer model easily shows that President Obama’s proposed regulations would reduce global warming by around 0.02 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100. Actually, the true number is probably even smaller because that calculation assumes a future rate of warming — there hasn’t been any for 17 years now — quite a bit higher than it is likely to be.” [16]

August 22, 2013

“The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is nearing the final stages of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)—the latest, greatest version of its assessment of the science of climate change. Information is leaking out, with some regularity, as to what the final report will contain (why it is secretive in the first place is beyond us).” [17]

The IPCC has three options: 1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again. 2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50%, or 3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world. We’re betting on door number 3.” [18]

“Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate. Similar stories concerning Antarctica neglect the fact that the net temperature trend in recent decades is negative, or that warming the surrounding ocean can serve only to enhance snowfall, resulting in a gain in ice. Global warming affects hurricanes in both positive and negative fashions, and there is no relationship between the severity of storms and ocean-surface temperature, once a commonly exceeded threshold temperature is reached. Reports of massive species extinction also turn out to be impressively flawed.” [19]

“Global warming is overblown. […] historical records show that about two-thirds of this warming will be

in the cold portion of the year, and the lion's share will be in the coldest, most deadly air. Does this sound like something we should spend a fortune trying to stop?”

“Kyoto is fiscally irresponsible. “

“Kyoto would harm the environment. […] the feds are likely to take the taxes meant to force us to stop burning gasoline, and literally throw them at windmills, or burn them in one of our dumbest technologies (because it can't ever work on a large scale), solar energy.”

In conclusion, Michaels says “[W]e could just save our dough because the climate change issue is an overblown bunch of hooey, which is why President Bush killed Kyoto.“ [20]

Key Deeds

2017

Patrick Michaels is listed as a contributor to the upcoming release of Climate Change: The Facts 2017, a book released by the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) and edited by Jennifer Marohasy. While investigating the authors, DeSmog noted that one of the IPA's listed “leading experts” involved in the book is New Zealand’s Ken Ring, who in addition to being a described “long range weather forecaster” has written “two, possibly three, books about cats” including Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat’s Paws in 1998. [95]

There are also essays by Matt Ridley, and Bjørn Lomborg on the economics of climate change, and by Simon Breheny on how the freedom to discuss climate change science is under threat.”[96]

Prior versions of the book featured contributions from a range of prominent climate change deniers, and describes mainstream climate change research as “pseudo-science.” [39]

March 23, 2017

Michaels was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12). His keynote speech was titled “Vacating the Endangerment Finding.” [94]

In his speech, Michaels spoke about the need to vacate the Endangerment Finding, a piece of legislation which classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant and allowed the EPA to regulate it under the clean air act. The concluding statement of his talk was that “the endangerment finding is not based on anything close to normative science and must be vacated.”

“It will resume warming,” Michaels said on the show, “but you don't really care if it warms a degree in the next 60 years. It warmed a degree in the last 100 years. Life epectancy doubled.” “Admit it, it's a religion,” Michaels added later in the program.

December 12, 2016

Patrick Michaels was an attendee at a private meeting also attended by Trump's EPA Transition team lead Myron Ebell on Capitol Hill. E&E News reported that the event was not open to the public or to the press and Ebell refused to give any details. The event was hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and held in the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. The EPW committee is chaired by Senator James Inhofe who, like Trump, has described human-caused climate change as a hoax. [84]

DeSmog also noted that three of the attendees—Myron Ebell, Randy Randol, and Steve Milloy—had all been part of the Global Climate Science Communications Team in the late 1990s, a group organized by the American Petroleum Institute. According to an early memo, the group said “victory will be achieved when […] Average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom'.” [87]

“In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences you have an international team of authors who publishes a paper and then they add an American author to their next paper the chance that it will report a positive result doubles. This is very, very bad, science is very very sick.” [17:35]

“Probably the best solution is to do nothing, because doing nothing is doing something.” [20:52]

“The future belongs to the efficient, if you just get out of the way. Lesson number one, if you want to clean world, you want a vibrant economy.” [21:09]

“You properly account for the fact that the earth is getting greener, the more co2 we put in—you can see it on satellite—it is God's getting greener Earth. If you account for all of those, what happens is the social cost of carbon becomes the social benefit of carbon.” [28:01]

“So what's going to have to happen is the endangerment finding is going to have to be torn apart.” [29:27]

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The Hill. Domenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [89]

Michaels writes that it is a sign that the new administration “is on a clear mission not just to stop, but to reverse many of the actions of Obama’s EPA.” [83]

He adds that the new administration is “going to have to find people willing to expose the current regime’s blatant abuse of logic in generating inflated 'costs' of global warming, while largely ignoring the co-benefits of fossil fuel power.” Michaels concludes that “The nomination of Scott Pruitt is further evidence that the president-elect is serious, and circumstantial evidence that the influence of Al Gore’s recent visit was of little consequence.” [83]

CDR Communications was behind the 2010 video by the Cornwall Alliance titled Resisting the Green Dragon, which claimed environmentalism was a “false religion” and a “global government” power grab. Chris Rogers of CDR Communictions is also chairman of The James Partnership, the umbrella arm that includes the Cornwall Alliance as one of its projects and pays the salary of Calvin Beisner, Cornwall’s founder and spokesperson. [27]

“We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano had said before the film was released. [30]

“The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.” [30]

In an interview with Ezra Levant, Morano said:

“I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.” [30]

Patrick Michaels published an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal, titled “The Climate Snow Job” where he claims that the NOAA manipulated data to make it look like the planet is warming faster than it is:

“NOAA's alteration of its measurement standard and other changes produced a result that could have been predicted: a marginally significant warming trend in the data over the past several years, erasing the temperature plateau that vexed climate alarmists have found difficult to explain. Yet the increase remains far below what had been expected,” Michaels writes. [13]

Michaels also suggests that temperatures in 2015, while still being “the highest average surface temperature in the 160-year global history since reliable records started being available,” had a “de minimis” effect on the global economy.

Ten scientists at Climate Feedback reviewed Michaels' claims, and concluded that “The article misleads readers with a series of sweeping claims about distinct aspects of climate science and the implications of global warming for the global economy. Most of the article is devoted to casting doubt over the accuracy of the global temperature record. The author uses detailed technical descriptions to distract readers from the inaccuracies of the article, which involve cherry-picking data to support multiple unsubstantiated and discredited claims.” [32]

Patrick Michaels testified in front of the House Natural Resources Committee hearing on “An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon.” During questioning from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Michaels confirms that he served as a “member scientist” for the tobacco industry front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC). [34]

Patrick Michaels is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change. [37]

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?”

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [37]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

Patrick Michaels is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company. [38]

The book includes essays and articles from a range of climate change skeptics, with contributors including the following:

“Option No. 3,” references an earlier report written by Michaels, in Cato At Liberty, stating one of the IPCC's options is to mislead policy makers and the rest of the word with AR5. This was “the door” they were betting on. [17]

January 17, 2013

Patrick Michaels published a piece in The Washington Times which asserts that “there has been no significant warming trend since the fall of 1996,” and that “it's a pretty good bet that we are going to go nearly a quarter of a century without warming.” [42]

Michaels' article was published at the same time as a Washington Times editorial which similarly asserts that “There has been no appreciable warming since 1998.” The editorial cites a recent paper by renowned climate scientist James E. Hansen, producing just one statement from Hansen's report as evidence: “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” [43]

Based on this statement, the paper claims that “Mr. Hansen has just acknowledged more than the lack of warming. His words confirm nature, not mankind, played the decisive role in directing global temperatures over the past 10 years.” A number of other climate change skeptics have already pointed to this statement as an “admission” that they were right all along. [44]

This is just one statement from Hansen's actual report (PDF). If one were to read further, they would discover that the assertion of “no appreciable warming” is not necessarily supported (emphasis added): [45]

“These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution […]”

October, 2012

Authors of a 2009 US Federal Advisory Committee report Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States criticised the Cato Institute for producing a document using near identical cover images and layout to their own report in a “deceptive and misleading way.” In a statement, members of the federally-funded US Global Change Research Program, which produced the original report, said they were “dismayed” by the Cato Institute's effort: [46]

“The Cato report is in no way an addendum to our 2009 report. It is not an update, explanation, or supplement by the authors of the original report. Rather, it is a completely separate document lacking rigorous scientific analysis and review,” the original report authors write.

“The authors of the Cato Institute report say that their report has more references than our report, but this is a meaningless distinction that does not reflect relative thoroughness. Our 2009 report was intentionally written to be accessible to a general audience and, consequently, cited only the most authoritative and comprehensive sources. The Cato Institute report includes numerous citations of marginal relevance and excludes or misrepresents key publications that, in fact, contradict its interpretations.”

The Cato report accused the authors of the original report of “systematic bias,” claiming they had made the climate change problem appear worse than it really was in order to sustain further research income.The Cato report is in no way an addendum to our 2009 report. It is not an update, explanation, or supplement by the authors of the original report. Rather, it is a completely separate document lacking rigorous scientific analysis and review.

In a report on The Daily Climate, John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, said of the Cato report: [48]

It's not an addendum. It's a counterfeit. It's a continued effort to kick the can down the road: A steady drip, drip, drip of fake reports by false scientists to create a false sense of debate.

“1) Demonstration that the rate greenhouse-related warming is clearly below the mean of climate forecasts from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are based upon changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that are closest to what is actually being observed,

2) demonstration that the Finding of Endangerment from greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon a very dubious and critical assumption,

3) demonstration that the definition of science as a public good induces certain biases that substantially devalue efforts to synthesize science, such as those undertaken by the IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and

4) demonstration that there is substantial discontent with governmental and intergovernmental syntheses of climate change and with policies passed by this House of Representatives.”

Speaker at the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC3). [52]

The conference’s theme was “Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis” to reflect Heartland's belief that that “scientific debate is not over,” and it was designed to “call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming.”

According to the World Climate Report, “Dr. MIchaels' general message was that the recent behavior of global temperatures is starting to push the (lower) bounds of climate models’ expectations of such behavior and that if the current slowdown in the rate of global warming continues for much longer, we must start to question the reliability of climate projections of the future state of our climate.” [55]

According to conference's invitation letter, “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective”(emphasis added).

July, 2007

Patrick Michaels stated in an affidavit to a Vermont court that he is withdrawing from a case in which he was to be an expert witness to avoid having to disclose the funders of New Hope Environmental Services Inc., a company he solely owns. In the case, car makers were trying to block legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the auto industry. [58]

In the affidavit, Michaels states his company is “a consultancy whose mission is to publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social persepctives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media.” Michaels stated: [58]

Public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity. Also, in 2006, when a $100,000 contract between New Hope and electric utility Intermountain Rural Electric Association to synthesize and research new findings on global warming became public knowledge, a public campaign was initiated to change the composition of the board of directors so that there would be no additional funding. That campaign was successful, as Intermountain has not provided further funding. [58]

May 2, 2007

Patrick Michaels was an “Expert” on Appeared on Glenn Beck's special “Exposed: The Climate of Fear” (PDF). Beck promised the program would present the “other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere.” Media Transparency recorded a list of falsehoods that were propagated by the program. [59]

The Great Global Warming Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed: [60]

“the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed.”

Michaels attended the International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age which convenes every five years, with the most recent (PDF) being in 2006 (which included an extensive workshop on “climate prediction uncertainties”). [63]

Organizer Petr Chylek claims its purpose is to “promote open discussion” regarding climate issues. The conference suggests that global warming is a natural process and possibly even “a blessing.” [64]

DeSmogBlog and ABC News uncovered a leaked memo written by the president of the Intermountain Rural Electrical Association that linked to Patrick Michaels' consulting firm. [65]

In the memo, Stan Lewandowski, General Manager of IREA discusses a coordinated campaign by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups to push back against “alarmism” on climate change: (emphasis added). [97]

“There are other groups that are interested in the issue of global warming and the concerns about its costs. Koch Industries is working with other large corporations, including AEP and the Southern Company, on possibly financing a film that would counteract An Inconvenient Truth. Koch has also decided to finance a coalition that very likely will be administered through the National Association of Manufacturers. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. CEI has a director on climate change and other employees working on the issue. We have met with Koch, CEI and Dr. Michaels, and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities.”

The memo shows that New Hope Environmental Services received $100,000 from the IREA and “other electrical cooperatives” in the past. Controversy ensued, with the Virginia governor's office voicing its concern over Michaels use of the title of “state climatologist.” The following from the Richmond Times-Dispatch: [66]

“The governor’s office has sent a letter to the University of Virginia requesting that Patrick J. Michaels not use his title of state climatologist when conducting his private consulting business.

The state is concerned that the U.Va. professor’s controversial views on global warming could be mistaken for the state’s views…The governor’s office has repeatedly said that Michaels does not represent the state with his opinions about global warming.”

“Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia, also moonlights as one of the country's most aggressive and, in some circles, most reviled skeptics about the scientific consensus on climate change. It was that role that landed Michaels in the center of a small controversy in Richmond last month, when the administration of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) asked him to be clear that he is not speaking for the state when discussing issues such as global warming.”

Michaels points satellite data, claiming that “ you see it's really not global warming, obviously […] In fact, because there is a net statistically significant cooling of the whole record, it almost looks to me, as a scientist, like what's really going on here is the planet has remained in the slight cooling phase that it was in since World War II […]” [93]

In conclusion, Michaels finished with what he described as “a little one-minute diatribe on how federal climatologists don't really tell you the truth, and how your government is trying to mislead you.” [93]

Before Robock started on his portion of the debate, Wattenberg asks Michaels “I'm working under the general proposition, Pat, that your answer to the question, must we act now to avert a climate catastrophe is no.” Michaels confirms that his answer is “No.” [93]

May, 1995

Patrick Michaels was one of several expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Western Fuels Assocaition in St. Paul, Minnesota, to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. [70]

Patrick Michaels helped The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition develop a set of “five guiding scientific principles” aimed at “offering federal and state government a yardstick against which to measure science in public policy.” Michaels is listed in a TASSC newsletter as a “member scientist” who had helped to draft the guidelines. [71]

TASSC was a front group created in 1993 by specialist crisis PR company APCO Worldwide and cigarette firm Philip Morris to fight tobacco legislation and discredit science linking smoking to health concerns.

1991

Patrick Michaels lended “expert” advice on the impacts of global warming to a public relations campaign conceived and funded by a coalition of coal companies and electric utilities. The campaign, under the title “Information Council on the Environment,” aimed to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” [72]

Michaels was to be one of three members of a science advisory panel to lend credibility to the campaign and would make broadcast media appearances, do interviews and provide his signature to a letter sent to members of the public who had responded to the campaign. [72]

Additionally, he has published some of his papers in the journal Energy and Environment, run by climate skeptic Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Christiansen has described (PDF) her journal as a place for skeptics to go when their papers are rejected by more mainstream science journals. [82]

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE